But as I commented in the last post, the campaign has provoked articulate and spirited resistance from professional science communicators in the media. I view that as an extremely heartening development, because it furnishes us with what amounts to a model of how professional norms might contribute to protecting the science communication environment from toxic cultural meanings. Democratic societies need both scientific insight into how the science communication environment works and institutional mechanisms for protecting it if they are to make effective use of the immense knowledge at their disposal for advancing their citizens' common welfare.

But where exactly do things stand now in the US? Historically, at least, the issue of GM-food risks has aroused much less attention, much less concern, than it has in Europe. That could change as a result of culturally partisan communications of the sort we are now observing, but has it changed yet or even started to?

John Timmer, the science editor for Ars Technica, actually posed more or less this question to me in a twitter exchange, asking whether there really is “anything like” the sort of cultural conflict toward GM foods risks that we see toward climate-change risks in this country. Questions like that deserve data-informed answers.

So here’s some data from a recent (end of September) survey. The sample was a nationally representative one of 800 individuals. One part of the survey asked them to rank on a scale of 0-7 “how serious” they viewed a diverse set of risks (I call this the “industrial strength risk perception measure”).

The question, essentially, is whether GM foods are at risk of acquiring the sorts of cultural meanings that divide “hierarchical individualists” and “egalitarian communitarians” on various issues. Accordingly, I have constructed statistical models that permit us to see not only how GM-food risks rank in relation to others for the American population as a whole but also whether and strongly GM-food risks divide those two segments of the population.

There are a number of things one could say here.

One is—holy smokes, the US public is apparently more worried about GM-food risks than they are about global warming, nuclear power, and guns! The “average American” would assign a ranking of 4.3 to GM foods (just above “moderately risky”) but only 3.9 for global warming (just below), 4.0 (spot on) for nuclear, and 2.9 (between “low” and “moderate”) for guns.

But that wouldn’t be the way I’d read these results. First of all, while it’s true that GM foods are apparently more scary for the “average” American than guns, nuclear power, and climate change, the striking thing is just how unconcerned that “person” is with any of those risks. “High rates of taxation for businesses” are apparently much more worrisome for the "mean" member of the American population than the earth overheating or people being shot. Given how unconcerned this guy/gal is with all these other risks, should we get all that excited that he/she is a bit more more concerned about GM foods?

Notice too that the "mean" member of the population isn't as concerned with GM foods as with high business tax rates (4.5)—or as illegal immigration (4.7) or government spending (5.3)? What to make of that?...

But second and more important, look at the cultural variance onthese risks. Global warming turns out to be the most serious risk for egalitarian communitarians. Indeed, that group sees nuclear power as much riskier, too, than either business tax rates, illegal immigration, or “government spending,” which are about as scary for that group as gun risks. Hierarchical individualists have diametrically opposed perceptions of the dangers posed by all of these particular risk sources.

Bear in mind, hierarch individualists and egalitarian communitarians aren’t rare, or unusual people. They are pretty recognizable in lots of respects—including their political affiliations, which amount to “Independent leans Republican” and “Independent leans Democrat,” respectively.

Given this, it’s not clear that it makes much sense to assign meaning to the “average” or “population mean” scores on these risks. Because real people have particular rather than "mean" cultural outlooks, we should ask not how the "average" person perceives culturally contested risks, but how someone like this see those risks as opposed to someone like that?

Yet note, the risks posed by GM foods are not culturally contested. We are all, in effect, "average" there. Moreover, for both cultural hierarchical individualists and egalitarian communitarians, GM-food risks are in the “middle” of the range of risk sources they evaluated.

So what I’d say, first, is that there is definitely no cultural conflict for GM foods in the US—at least not of the sort that we see for climate change, nuclear power, guns, etc.

Second, I’d say that I don’t think there’s very much concern about GM foods generally. The “middling” score likely just means that members of the sample didn’t feel nearly as strongly about GM foods as they felt—one way or the other—about the other risks. So they assigned a middling rating.

But third, and most important, I’d say that this is exactly the time to be worried about cultural polarization over GM foods.

As I said at the outset of this series, putative risk sources aren’t borne with antagonistic cultural meanings. They acquire them.

But once they have them, they are very very very hard to get rid of.

In both parts, I likened culturally antagonistic meanings to “pollution” of the “science communication environment.” Given how hard it is to change cultural meanings, it’s got to be a lot easier and more effective to keep that sort of contamination out—to deflect antagonistic meanings away from novel technologies or ones that otherwise haven’t acquired such resonances—than it is to “clean it up” once an issue has become statured with such meanings.

Reader Comments (4)

"Second, I’d say that I don’t think there’s very much concern about GM foods generally. The “middling” score likely just means that members of the sample didn’t feel nearly as strongly about GM foods as they felt—one way or the other—about the other risks."

Actually, I interpreted it only that there wasn't a specifically political element to their concern. I suspect that there are people very concerned and people not at all concerned, but that these average out in the middle of the spectrum. What divides them is not politics.

If people were genuinely not concerned, I would expect *both* curves to be over on the left, not in the middle. If they had asked a few 'control' questions like the risks of carpeted floors or teddy bears, you would see that a middle score doesn't imply indifference.

What this might mean is that Americans haven't really thought about GM yet, and when they do, since it is not just a question of 'science' (even if what the science means were completely uncontested, which it isn't) people will inevitably bring their cultural preferences to bear. Whether one would predict an effect of different cultural preferences in this case I'm not sure; it would be instructive to carry out the same survey in Europe.

@Roland -- I think you are right that US public hasn't thought about this issue. Studies show knowledge level is really low for GM foods. The possibility that people could polarize quickly if/when tune is definitely plausible Consider CCP study on nanotechnology.

@Niv: Not following you on the Teddy bears etc. I agree the mean risk score for GM Foods is ambiguous. It could indeed mean that there is genuine concern that is uniform across culture types. My alternative interpretation -- that it is a kind of collecitive "unsure ... don't know ... wha?" is based (a) on existing literature suggesting that knowledge/awareness of GMO is low & US & (b) literature on risk perception (including article linked to in post) that reports finding that people pick "middle" options on risk scales when they are unfamiliar with or unsure about the hazards posed by the risk source. On raw data: Am not really sure what you have in mind there either. These data are already pretty close to "raw" -- mean scores for sample & mean scores for subsamples defined by particular characteristics. The one thing that I can think of that might help to shed a little light whether the "genuine, middling concern versus unfamiliarity" issue is to look at distribution of responses for the GM food item. High kurtosis would be consistent with or suggestive of the "huh?" interpretatiion b/c it indicates bunching at "middle" as a kind of default choice (this is the form of reasoning used by the scholars who suggest that mid-range scores are a kind of "don't know"); & so would relatively high SD -- meaning that responses are super noisy. ... I actually think more might be learned not by pondering raw data but by formulating alternative hypotheses about sources of variance that would suggest reflective or considered types of concern in some subgroups. Tried that w/ culture & didn't find anything. Anotehr possiblity might be religion or even religion combined with culture (tested through an interaction etc). I might well invite people to propose theories & predictors & poke around. One thing I won't do -- b/c I think it is characteristic of mindless econometric sensibility -- is plug every conceivable or available predictor I can think of into a regression, see what is significant (something is bound to be!), & then tell an ad hoc story that makes the likely meaningless results seem meaningful

Research of the Cultural Cognition Project is or has been supported by the National Science Foundation; by the Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars; by the Arcus Foundation; by the Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School; the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University; Skoll Global Threats Fund; and by GWU, Temple, and NYU Law Schools. You can contact us here.